Who is saying this? I would say that most people are saying that another Brisbane side should be one of the next three. They might have different combinations of the next three but for me I wouldn’t go with PNG
Nevertheless, it will be what it will be.
Numerous people on here have listed Perth, Christchurch and PNG as their next three teams.
Despite all of the shit I've said about Perth, I'd be happy if the next three teams were Perth, Christchurch and Brisbane Tigers. However, I don't buy the bullshit hype that's prevalent on here about Perth and NZ2 being juggernauts. I think they'll be small teams that end up struggling to carve out a niche in difficult markets.
I
was happy with NZ2, Brisbane Tigers and NZ3 until that article on club finances was released. I was surprised to learn that the Warriors made just $11.6m from football operations last year. That's not an attempt to shit on the Christchurch bid, either. It's just pointing out the obvious that if a team from New Zealand's only large city pulls just $11.6m in a year when they're hot all around the country -- after having almost 30 years to grow their fanbase -- then questions need to be asked about a new team in a city with a population of just 300k.
It might be unpopular, but I'm beginning to think the ARLC should keep the NRL at 17 teams until 2032, then bring in the Brisbane Tigers. I have grave concerns over Perth's ability to draw 15k and generate more than $12m from football operations. The Western Force are a basket case, despite having Twiggy Forrest and a player base that's three times the size of the NRLWA. Sadly, no one on here wants to acknowledge these facts because they're biased code warriors who cannot concede that rugby league isn't perfect and rugby union ain't the devil. If the game does follow the lunatics on here and goes with PNG, Perth and Christchurch then it's only a matter of time until it falls over and costs them a fortune.